717
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
717 points (99.2% liked)
World News
46584 readers
1476 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"The ethnicity-and ancestry-based conception of the people that predominates within the party is not compatible with the free democratic order,"
Great news, but also ironic considering German uncritical support for Israel.
Germany supports Israel but they're also critical of it. They have active arrest warrants for Netanyahu if he ever steps foot in their jurisdiction.
For Germany the ideal outcome would be peaceful continuation of both Israel and Palestine. If protecting one means harming the other, they will take no action. Israel is an important military stronghold against eastern powers and will continue to hold special privileges.
Also ironic is that banning political parties is not compatible with the free democratic order.
Paradox of tolerance and whatnot… It’s not ironic. Not only is it compatible, it is essential to its existence.
It’s anti-democratic no matter what paradox you want to try and spin it as.
This is one side who fears losing power trying to eliminate their political opponent who is rapidly gaining followers. It’s authoritarian, it’s anti-democratic, and it’s fascism. It’s LITERALLY WHAT THE NAZIS DID for crying out loud!
Democracy means the will of the people. The government banning the party that has the most supporters is the exact opposite of that.
No it's not anti-democratic. The parties can't ban the AFD only initiate the process. Whether the AFD is antidemocratic and a has the ability to undermine democracy is decided by the highest court. Precisely so they can't just ban the opposition.
Banning political party is anti-democratic. When parties can initiate the process to ban other political parties, that’s anti-democratic.
When the party they’re trying to ban is also the most popular party with the people, that’s especially anti-democratic.
Banning parties isn't always anti-democratic. The reason why is a bit unituitive so I explained it quite detailed but I believe that's necessary. Take for example a hypothetical party X. Party X will use legal loopholes to effectively destroy democracy when it gets into power (restrict free speech, manipulate ballots, lock up the opposition, etc.) . Now party X gets the majority. That creates a situation where Party X stays in Power indefinitely. Now at some point the majority of people people change their mind and now they wouldn't vote for the party anymore so the government isn't representative of the people anymore. But it doesn't matter anymore because democracy is dead in the country now. So now the people have to go through the whole establishing democracy process again which costs many lives and many years of living under oppression. That could have been skipped if party X had been banned. Now the problem remains that a majority of people weren't represented in a election. That's obviously bad. However keep in mind that the only thing we need to ban to skip all those years of oppression is to ban a single thing that party's just aren't allowed to do. And that thing is being antidemocratic. So banning that one single thing allows us to keep all the other nice thing that democracy has to offer.
The massive, gigantic problem with this is you’re making the assumption that party X will use legal loopholes to destroy democracy, and are using that assumption to instead destroy democracy by banning them over things you claim that they will do. You’re saying “we’re going to ban you for being antidemocratic because we think that one day you might be antidemocratic, so we’re gonna go ahead and be antidemocratic first”.
If you say that banning a party because it plans to destroy democracy itself destroys democracy then you are talking of democracy as am absolute. So after banning the party democracy vanishes and we live in a not democratic state anymore. That's not the case though. It would still be a democracy. Banning a party is a dilemma, either you let the people have their say which is more democratic and then after you have let them then you don't have a democracy anymore or you don't and then you have less of a democracy in the sense that one position of planning to completely destroy democracy is not allowed but it still is a democracy on all the other issues at least.
As for whether the party will use loopholes to destroy democracy: that's a complex issue and difficult to determine. We may not agree on that. That's why we leave it to a court to settle.
Except when it's a nazi party. Don't give nazis the time of day.
When the term Nazi has lost all meaning due to the left throwing it around at everything they don’t like, calling a party a “Nazi party” also means nothing and causes most people to just roll their eyes at you, and often actually look into what you’re so angry at. Maybe that’s why the AfD are gaining so many supporters?
Nothing in their policies on their website is even remotely “Nazi” adjacent.
What makes them “Nazis” in your opinion?
Nah we calling nazis nazis. Not just things we don't like. Question for you. If the AFD ain't about nazis, why do nazis think they are?
No, no just all the nazi dog whistles.
Goose steps like a nazi, has nazi ties, doesn't decry nazis who love them. Brother you got yourself a nazi.
All that and still didn't answer a simple question:
Which policies are "nazi" policies exactly?
Also worth pointing out, since you clearly don't remember - the Nazi's were far left socialists. They weren't far right.
You wanna talk about arguing in bad faith lol
Revisionist historian here.
National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
Yes. The far right nazi party. Thanks for coming out
Socialists
Far right.
Pick one.
DPRK is, neither democratic, or a republic of the people. This concept of calling themselves something their not shouldn't be so confusing to you. Please tell me you're not serious about this, the nazis are, and have always been far right. If you are serious, you really need to take proper history classes, revisionist history about the nazis is not ok.
A democracy cannot exist when anti-democratic elements can seize power. In other words, violate the social contract and get your sorry fascist ass banned.
While you can argue that Individuals in the AfD are antidemocratic, I honestly do not see evidence for that on the general party level.
I read their program. Weird? Yes. Antidemocratic? No.
The Bundesverfassungsschutz has released a 1000 page report detailing their investigation and assessment. I find it unsurprising that the AfDs advertising material for an election hides their anti democratic aspects.
Look I am all for marking extremist, but it really matters on what grounds. And it matters how it is done.
Why is the report Not public? Does Not make any sense.
Why has the report not undergone internal audits as it would be standard procedure? Seems odd at least.
Its really all about „Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“ - and no it does not matter if you personally think „it is obvious“.
Based on what I have read, hence based on what is known about the content of the report, there is no good evidence (but I could be wrong). Also no legal implications follow from this report, and based on what is known about Nancy Faeser involvment I can not deny a certain „Geschmäckle“ which is undermining the original purpose.
If you wanna do these things, they need to be done with undeniable evidence and transparency.
The report was intended for publication at a later date specifically because it had not passed the full review process yet. That's why it's not public. A news magazine with a reputation for investigative reporting (think German NYT but a bit more conservative leaning) has gotten their hands on at least part of the report and chose to write about it.
That is why the report is not public (yet), because it is still undergoing the internal audits you are asking for.
Yes it matters how it's done. And they are trying to do it right. How the report got to the magazine and the motives of potential leakers are pure speculation at this point.
From what I have read (hence from what is known) it's a 1000 page document compiled by an organisation that has had it in the past trouble when it came to persecuting right wing extremism (they covered up their involvement with a right wing terror group and a former head of the BfV was kicked out for passing information about the early stages of this investigation into the AfD to the AfD, to name just two recent examples).
If such a report makes it through such an organisation I expect it to hold more than just hear say and speculation.
That is not entirely correct. If the BfV internally accepts the report as factual it can use a wider array of tools to observe and investigate the AfD. It's content could (again, after the review process has been completed) be published and used as evidence for administrative and legal proceedings of whatever nature. (eg a prospective teacher was prohibited from joining the Bavarian education system because of her left wing extremist political views. If the AfD is classified as a right wing extremist organisation the same could happen to AfD members).
Well, that is Not how it happenend. Nancy Faser announced it publicly. If you are waiting for the review, you dont do that…
And banning opposition parties is anti-democratic. Can you think of any other German government that banned opposing political parties?
No. Banning opposition parties BECAUSE THEY ARE OPPOSITION PARTIES would be undemocratic. Banning opposition parties because they are anti democratic is not.
What you are saying is like "killing someone is murder", while ignoring the fact that self defence is a thing that happens, is legal and is moral and IS NOT MURDER.
What about the parties policies is anti-democratic?
"The ethnicity-and ancestry-based conception of the people that predominates within the party is not compatible with the free democratic order,"
That's not their policies, that's what a biased spy agency said lol. It also makes zero sense as a reason to be "not compatible with the free democratic order".
Claiming the BfV is biased against the AfD has to be your attempt at satire. The same BfV that was run by Maaßen for 6 years? The same BfV that covered up their involvement with the NSU?
For the assessment of the BfV the publicly stated policy goals of the AfD may or may not have mattered (if I wanted to destroy German democracy I wouldn't write that into my election program either). The BfV has come to the conclusion that the AfD's actual goals are incompatible with the FDGO, because they are based on their understanding of what "German" means (which for the AfD is primarily an ethnic designation).
Here are two examples of policies that the AfD fought for (its from their Grundsatzprogramm):
Putting someone in prison violates their freedom.
Putting someone in prison because they murdered someone is still the right thing to do.
Not at all the same thing.
Clearly I don't agree.
The point is that in our social system we violate the rights of some when they violate the rights of others.
Or rather, your rights nd priveleges are restricted when you start using them to harm others.
The AfD have not violated anyones rights. They have a massive following who vote for them, which is growing larger and larger by the day. Banning them from elections is anti-democratic when they haven't done anything to harm anyones rights, nor do any of their policies actually harm anyones "rights".
What policies of theirs do you believe would violate the rights of others?
https://www.dw.com/en/german-remigration-debate-fuels-push-to-ban-far-right-afd/a-67965896
No existing democracy is absolute, and there's a pretty strong argument it has to be that way.
What if I'm against immigration due to a housing bubble that is destroying the poor and dramatically increasing price to income ratios, am I a racist or a saint?
I think anyone with a brain can see that in many countries mass immigration is being used to depress wages and invert the phillips curve after QE, or to prop up GDP to avoid a technical recession in favor of a per-capita recession, which is for some reason not defined or acknowledged. It also clearly hurts the poor and benefits the rich via asset price inflation and higher rental income.
That would be a real argument, if the immigrants weren't poor themselves and if they actually were bad for the economy as opposed to good.
The fact that you jumped in here like that in response to a barely-related comment about democracy makes me think racist.
Well I've just read Afd supporters posts about immigration. As far as being good or bad for the economy, I guess it depends if you hold assets that get inflated.
A landlord will definitely benefit, and that will definitely grow GDP; which left leaning people used to care about the poor rather than worshipping at the god of GDP. The fear of their own kind calling them a racist may have defeated that.
since you asked: ", am I a racist or a saint? "
you seem to acknowledge the functionality of undermining the working class by inviting people who have even less to work for even less. And yet you chose to be vocally against immigration (since that would help with a symptom)- while you could also be pointing out the failures of the regulatory body that allows for the many to be opressed by a parasitic few or even pointing out that the parasitic few are to be taken out of the equation. Kicking down is weak.
If you want systemic change to the economic system there's definitely an order of operations here to follow, wouldn't you agree?
If I want to redesign a roller coaster my first step shouldn't be to start removing the tracks while passengers are on it.
Yeah, thats dumb.
Destroy the poor, and maybe the fallout will fix the repercussions. Is that the plan then.